Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TimHauck

The Cancel Out Theory

Recommended Posts

I bring it up because with not many QB options this week, I think I'm going to be starting Shaun Hill, somewhat in an attempt to cancel out my opponent's Calvin Johnson.

 

I know most people will say "start whoever you think will get the most points," and you should, but if you're not sure, I do sometimes try to use the cancel out theory as a way of hedging my bets.

 

I would say the best way to use the cancel out theory is with a QB against your opponent's WR if you play in 6-point passing TD leagues. Unfortunately for me, mine is only 4, but I still think it's worth it. With a QB up against a WR, barring injury, you KNOW that WR's TD's will come from your QB. But honestly, due to this point difference (as well as the point difference in passing yards vs. rushing yards), I almost hope that Johnson doesn't catch any TD's. Even if he does, if Hill can limit his turnovers and/or throw a TD to someone else, he should accomplish the goal of canceling out Johnson. I'd rather have Hill get a similar amount of points to Johnson, then start someone like Gradkowski and just hope that Johnson doesn't go off.

 

But I have also seen some people talk about using a WR to cancel out a QB, which can be risky since of course the QB has other people that he can throw to.

 

So does anyone else believe in this theory? If so, how do you apply it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't think this has been discussed in a little while

 

 

The relationship between this being discussed and people wasting vast amounts of time are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im guessing you must have Brady and no backup? Play Hill anyway and the fact he has Calvin is just a plus. And QB that is throwing to him is a decent play or has a chance to put up some good pts.

 

The only time i will really use the "cancel" out effect is if i have on of my opponents QBs receivers and am undecided on that receiver vs another. Other wise id never use that strategy to decide what QB to use :nono: But in your case id play Hill because with Calvin he has a chance to put up some good #s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't call it the "Cancel Out Theory," as it just plays into the hands of the people who stubbornly refuse to see reason on this issue. It is perhaps more appropriately called the "Hedging Against An Opponent's Explosive Player Theory." It is a legitimate factor (not a deciding factor, but a factor worth weighing) when making line up decisions. It has very limited applicability, but sounds like the situation you are describing justifies using it as a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time i will really use the "cancel" out effect is if i have on of my opponents QBs receivers and am undecided on that receiver vs another. Other wise id never use that strategy to decide what QB to use :nono: But in your case id play Hill because with Calvin he has a chance to put up some good #s.

 

Well the reason I'm doing it for a QB is because I was undecided. But why wouldn't you do it for a QB if you were undecided yet you'd do it for a WR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the reason I'm doing it for a QB is because I was undecided. But why wouldn't you do it for a QB if you were undecided yet you'd do it for a WR?

 

 

You're right TimHauck, it makes more sense to use this factor when deciding on whether to play a QB. Both QB->WR and WR->QB have correlation, but the correlation is much higher WR->QB in that every point to a WR scores points (albeit somewhat fewer points) for that WR's QB. Obviously, every point a QB scores does not necessarily tanslate to points for a specific WR. (As a practical matter, if you have the WR who is likely to be the main beneficiary of a top-tier QB, then you're probably playing that WR anyway, so you don't really have a close call on that decision.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the reason I'm doing it for a QB is because I was undecided. But why wouldn't you do it for a QB if you were undecided yet you'd do it for a WR?

 

If im undecided about a QB then im screwed anyway :shocking: more than likely. I would not base what QB i play on the WRs my opponents have thats for sure.

 

Undecided on a WR is just a tad differ then a QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone else believe in this theory? If so, how do you apply it?

 

I believe in it.

 

I also believe in The Lock Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Oprah Whinfrey's hetrosexuality, Free Lunches, GFI NOT AFP, and Brett Favre hasn't been seeking help with natural male enhancement.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bring it up because with not many QB options this week, I think I'm going to be starting Shaun Hill, somewhat in an attempt to cancel out my opponent's Calvin Johnson.

 

I know most people will say "start whoever you think will get the most points," and you should, but if you're not sure, I do sometimes try to use the cancel out theory as a way of hedging my bets.

 

I would say the best way to use the cancel out theory is with a QB against your opponent's WR if you play in 6-point passing TD leagues. Unfortunately for me, mine is only 4, but I still think it's worth it. With a QB up against a WR, barring injury, you KNOW that WR's TD's will come from your QB. But honestly, due to this point difference (as well as the point difference in passing yards vs. rushing yards), I almost hope that Johnson doesn't catch any TD's. Even if he does, if Hill can limit his turnovers and/or throw a TD to someone else, he should accomplish the goal of canceling out Johnson. I'd rather have Hill get a similar amount of points to Johnson, then start someone like Gradkowski and just hope that Johnson doesn't go off.

 

But I have also seen some people talk about using a WR to cancel out a QB, which can be risky since of course the QB has other people that he can throw to.

 

So does anyone else believe in this theory? If so, how do you apply it?

 

*LOOOONGGG SIGHHHHHH* Theres no theory, no applications, no hedging, no anything. start who will score the most points. think about it this way in an analogy I use every time im discussing this. Lets say you have a qb and they have ur qbs wr. The wr scores, so does ur qb. Its NO different that if u just pretend that u have a dif teams qb and they just happened to score at the same time in different stadiums and dif cities. Theres no cancelling out! So many like to believe in the "double dip". sure its fun to have rodgers/finley but its not strategic and theres 0 correllation. finley scoring is no different that gates scoring at the exact same time across the country. its just a form of "coincidence" that they are both on the same field on ur team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most weeks, I don't even pay attention to who my opponent is until the games start, never mind who he has on his team.

 

The only situation where this "theory" deserves any attention at all is if you own both quarterbacks playing in the Monday night game, and your opponent owns a WR from one of the two teams. Even in this case, the QBs have to be pretty much a tossup, and the QB-WR combo needs to be like Jake Delhomme-Steve Smith circa 2005. This kind of scenario might happen once a decade.

 

The important distinction here is you already know the current score of your game. If you're up by 10 points, you might lean to starting the QB of his WR to protect your lead. If you're down by 10 points, you might lean to the other QB, hoping he goes off while the other 2 falter.

 

Trying to use this "theory" before the games start is asinine, no matter what the clowns at FBGays think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most weeks, I don't even pay attention to who my opponent is until the games start, never mind who he has on his team.

 

The only situation where this "theory" deserves any attention at all is if you own both quarterbacks playing in the Monday night game, and your opponent owns a WR from one of the two teams. Even in this case, the QBs have to be pretty much a tossup, and the QB-WR combo needs to be like Jake Delhomme-Steve Smith circa 2005. This kind of scenario might happen once a decade.

 

The important distinction here is you already know the current score of your game. If you're up by 10 points, you might lean to starting the QB of his WR to protect your lead. If you're down by 10 points, you might lean to the other QB, hoping he goes off while the other 2 falter.

 

Trying to use this "theory" before the games start is asinine, no matter what the clowns at FBGays think.

 

I tell ya melon, those guys get no respect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*LOOOONGGG SIGHHHHHH* Theres no theory, no applications, no hedging, no anything. start who will score the most points. think about it this way in an analogy I use every time im discussing this. Lets say you have a qb and they have ur qbs wr. The wr scores, so does ur qb. Its NO different that if u just pretend that u have a dif teams qb and they just happened to score at the same time in different stadiums and dif cities. Theres no cancelling out! So many like to believe in the "double dip". sure its fun to have rodgers/finley but its not strategic and theres 0 correllation. finley scoring is no different that gates scoring at the exact same time across the country. its just a form of "coincidence" that they are both on the same field on ur team.

 

Did you read what I posted? I agreed with "start who you think will score the most points." But you say that like you know exactly who's going to score the most points. FF players are not fortune tellers. If you're choosing between guys like Shaun Hill, Bruce Gradkowski and Ryan Fitzpatrick, do you really know who's going to score the most points? No. So why not give yourself a little piece of mind by knowing that your waiver wire QB will most likely at least score a similar amount of points as your opponent's #1 WR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my 2 cents. It only has some value if your opponents WR catches TDs. If he doesn't, and your QB doesn't throw any, you may be screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what I posted? I agreed with "start who you think will score the most points." But you say that like you know exactly who's going to score the most points. FF players are not fortune tellers. If you're choosing between guys like Shaun Hill, Bruce Gradkowski and Ryan Fitzpatrick, do you really know who's going to score the most points? No. So why not give yourself a little piece of mind by knowing that your waiver wire QB will most likely at least score a similar amount of points as your opponent's #1 WR?

 

Of course i dont know who will score the most but you project who will and thats as close as it gets. And saying that ur qb will score most likely a similar amount of points as the wr is so wrong its not even funny. he coukld throw 5 tds and not 1 to the wr he has, or vice versa. All this is irrellevant..just re-read the points made in my post until they are imprinted on the brain like a brand on a bull. theres no cancelling out or double dipping or hedging, unless like a previous poster said, its the monday game and ur ahead and want to somewhat preserve the lead. but even then its a small measure taken against a slew of variables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course i dont know who will score the most but you project who will and thats as close as it gets. And saying that ur qb will score most likely a similar amount of points as the wr is so wrong its not even funny. he coukld throw 5 tds and not 1 to the wr he has, or vice versa. All this is irrellevant..just re-read the points made in my post until they are imprinted on the brain like a brand on a bull. theres no cancelling out or double dipping or hedging, unless like a previous poster said, its the monday game and ur ahead and want to somewhat preserve the lead. but even then its a small measure taken against a slew of variables.

 

I said he will MOST LIKELY score AT LEAST the same amount of points as Johnson. Obviously I'm happy if he throws TD's to other WR's, but it's not that likely that he's going to throw 4 to Johnson, which is the only way Johnson scores a significant more amount of points than Hill (in my league, ESPN projects Johnson for 13 points and Hill for 12).

 

Re-read my posts. I said I know "start who you think will get the most points." But if you think they will score about the same amount of points, then what's wrong with using this as a tie-breaker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres no cancelling out or double dipping or hedging, unless like a previous poster said, its the monday game and ur ahead and want to somewhat preserve the lead. but even then its a small measure taken against a slew of variables.

 

I don't see how you can say it's not hedging though. It's definitely hedging, you basically admitted that with your last sentence. The debate is just whether it's worth it or not.

 

Hedge: verb. to mitigate a possible loss by counterbalancing

 

Yes, by starting Hill, there's a chance Johnson scores more points. But not a great one, and it most likely won't be by very much if he does, so I'd be minimizing my losses. There's also a chance that they both put up duds. But I'm okay with that, because I know although my QB put up a dud, so did his WR, hence the term "cancel out." Obviously there's still 8 other players that will determine the outcome of the matchup, which is probably a reason some don't believe in this theory. But if Johnson goes off, and I start a different QB who puts up a dud, then I'm doubly screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing you are accomplishing is condemning Hill and Johnson to the same fate. If the game is a shootout, both will probably thrive. If it's a field goal duel, both will likely suffer. Note the use of probably and likely.

 

If both match their season's best, each will wind up with 16 points under your scoring system. If each matches their season average, Hill will put up three more points than Johnson. And (surprise!) there is a direct correlation between games where Hill has done well and Johnson has done well.

 

If all things QB on your roster are equal, and this includes opposing pass defenses, your "cancel out" plan does provide a potential "hedge" against a shootout. But rarely are all things equal. Go with your best QB with the best matchup. If that happens to be Hill, he's your guy. If it isn't Hill, "hedging" should not be a factor in your decision process.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I "hedged" in one game this season. But not really. My opponent started Peyton. I started Collie. But I was going to start Collie anyway because he was the best play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my money league, I have Rogers and Jennings. Not what I was hoping for so far, but this week, my opponent picked up and started James Jones. He played horribly in relief of Jennings. The Rogers INT was his fault. He should have gotten negative points.

 

My opponent has Stephen Hill, on his bench.

 

He canceled out whatever points he would have gotten from Hill. So even though I only got 11 from Rogers ... I really got that PLUS whatever Hill scores.

 

:headbanger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my money league, I have Rogers and Jennings. Not what I was hoping for so far, but this week, my opponent picked up and started James Jones. He played horribly in relief of Jennings. The Rogers INT was his fault. He should have gotten negative points.

 

My opponent has Stephen Hill, on his bench.

 

He canceled out whatever points he would have gotten from Hill. So even though I only got 11 from Rogers ... I really got that PLUS whatever Hill scores.

 

:headbanger:

Who brings sh!t like this back up from 2 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who brings sh!t like this back up from 2 years ago?

....and then not make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giant Fan operates in mysterious ways.

I guess he does. He could have spend less time searching and brought up a much more recent cancel out theory thread. I guess maybe because they are both S. Hill makes it kind of similar in a non similar way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Managers that invest any time in the "cancel out method", this is precisely why I don't enter a starting line up until about noon on Sunday... With the exception on any Thursday night action. Fantasy Football is not chess, always play your Studs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Managers that invest any time in the "cancel out method", this is precisely why I don't enter a starting line up until about noon on Sunday... With the exception on any Thursday night action. Fantasy Football is not chess, always play your Studs.

So you don't enter your lineup until Sunday to confuse the cancel out theorists? Sounds like you are playing chess a little more than you would like to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giant Fan operates in mysterious ways.

 

GFIAFP never ceases to amaze with his FF stories of years gone by... Tragic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relationship between this being discussed and people wasting vast amounts of time are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

You shouldn't call it the "Cancel Out Theory," as it just plays into the hands of the people who stubbornly refuse to see reason on this issue. It is perhaps more appropriately called the "Hedging Against An Opponent's Explosive Player Theory." It is a legitimate factor (not a deciding factor, but a factor worth weighing) when making line up decisions. It has very limited applicability, but sounds like the situation you are describing justifies using it as a factor.

 

The "Idea" is one that one either loves it, in a forced way, or dismisses it, in a worthless way.

 

As you stated, the big argument against this is, you should play those that give you the best chance of scoring the most points this week.

 

The reason the "idea" exists, is that some like to over think things. They want to find a way to block the other. Reality is this only is factored in to the passing game. Problem is, while the QB can be played in this manner, not so much the receiver, who could be a WR, TE, or RB. How can you block their QB if you only have one of the targets, even if that is Larry Fitzgerald (note he is a stud, and likely wouldn't be involved in this).

 

Your assertion that you are considering en lieu of a coin flip, is perhaps the only time this "idea" as presented makes any sense. As it then falls into the category of best educated guess as long as it isn't forced. Meaning you truly have a split decision on your hands.

 

The only other, would be if you have multiple receiving threats against their QB. Such as You have Gronk and Herndadez, in a mandatory TE w/ Flex league, and they have Brady. While Welker may get his, you know these two will also get theirs. But there doesn't exist many other pairings in the NFL where you could achieve this. Perhaps Denver WR? For most teams attempt to involve 5 receiving targets (wr, rb, and te). who will be targeted this week.

 

In the end, if it make you feel better about your lineup, do whatever.

It just isn't an MIT method for playing black jack is all I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×